7th TAE 2019

17 - 20 September 2019, Prague, Czech Republic

THE IMPACT OF WEED CONTROL METHODS ON

SUGAR BEET CROP

Kęstutis ROMANECKAS1, Aida ADAMAVIČIENĖ1, Edita EIMUTYTĖ1,

Jovita BALANDAITĖ1, Algirdas JASINSKAS2

1Vytautas Magnus University, Agriculture Academy, Institute of Agroecosystems and Soil Sciences,

53361 Kaunas reg., Akademija, Lithuania 2Vytautas Magnus University, Agriculture Academy, Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Safety,

53361 Kaunas reg., Akademija, Lithuania

Abstract

The effect of non-chemical weed control on organically grown sugar beet crop productivity and quality

was tested at the Experimental Station of the Aleksandras Stulginskis University in 2015-2016. The aim

of the experiment was to ascertain the influence of living mulch, mechanical (mellowing, cutting, mulch-

ing) and physical (steaming) weed control methods on sugar beet productivity and quality parameters.

There were tested 6 weed control methods: inter-row mellowing (control treatment), cutting and mulch-

ing with weeds, Persian clover, white mustard and spring barley, inter-row steaming.

Different alternative weed control methods usually had negative significant impact on the sugar beet

crop yield except inter-row steaming treatment. In these plots, decrease of root yield was insignificantly

less compared with control treatment. The effect of weed control methods on sugar beet root quality

parameters was weak.

Key words: sugar beet; non-chemical weed control; organic farming; productivity; quality.

INTRODUCTION

Today's traditional agriculture uses growing technologies based on a chemical pest control system.

Sugar beet is one of the most sensitive crop for weeds suppression, as they grow slowly in their early

stages of development and cannot compete with the weeds that germinate at that time. Weeds can re-

duce sugar beet yield by 26–100% (Vasinauskienė & Brazienė, 2017). Usually, in sugar beet crop,

herbicides containing the active ingredients as phenmedipham, desmedipham, etofumezate, metam-

itron, trisulfuronmethyl, clopyralid and chloridazone (Bennett, et al., 2004; Deveikytė, 2005; Domara-

dzki, 2007). High yields of root crop are obtained, but the extensive use of chemicals causes ecological

pollution. Avoiding damage the balance of nature and the risk of contamination of agricultural produc-

tion with residues of chemicals that are harmful to humans, encourages the transition to organic farm-

ing. Weeds are one of the most important agronomic problems in all farming systems, but the most

important in organic as the non-chemical methods of weed control are less effective than the use of

herbicides in intensive farming systems (Liebman, et al., 2003; Pilipavičius, et al., 2011).

Mechanical inter-row weed control is practiced in organic farms and can significantly reduce crop

weediness. The effectiveness of a mechanical weed control depends on the time and intensity of its

application. Methods of thermal engineering are also used to kill weeds. The heat source used around

the plant creates a high-temperature environment which, when heated, destroys them (Sirvydas &

Kerpauskas, 2012).

Cover crops (like as mulch) might suppress weeds and improve the fertility of soil at the same time

(Kader, et al., 2017; Pannacci, et al., 2017). Some of inter-cropped catch crops continue vegetation

and known as a “living mulch” (Robačer, et al., 2016). The use of the living mulch is a sufficient

alternative to the mechanical weed control. As living mulch can be grown clover, black medic, white

mustard or cereal grasses (Den Hollander, et al., 2007a; Kunz, et al., 2016; Masilionyte, et al., 2017).

However, living mulch crops can compete with the main crop (Liedgens, et al., 2004).

To summarize, sugar beet growing with living mulch crops is not widely investigated. In most cases,

the inter-cropping of legumes in cereals (Duchene, et al., 2017) or maize (Adamavičienė, et al., 2012;

Verret, et al., 2017) are investigated. So, the aim of the experiment was to establish the impact of non-

chemical weed control methods on the productivity and quality of organically grown sugar beet crop.

459

7th TAE 2019

17 - 20 September 2019, Prague, Czech Republic

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A stationary field experiment was performed in 2015–2016 at the Experimental Station (54º52′ N, 23º49′

E) of the Aleksandras Stulginskis University (ASU), Lithuania. The main objective of experiment was

to ascertain the influence of different non-chemical weed control methods on sugar beet crop produc-

tivity and quality in the conditions of organic farming. Six weed control methods were established: inter-

row mellowing (CT, control treatment), cutting and mulching with weeds (MW), Persian clover (MC),

white mustard (MM) and spring barley (MB) living mulches, and inter-row steaming (ST). According

to the Yagioka (2015), MW treatment imitates “natural farming” system. By the way, Lumbanraja

et al . (2004) established, that weeds as a cover plants were a sufficient control method in coffee fields.

The soil of experimental site was a silty loam (on average 46% sand, 42% silt, 12% clay) Planosol

(Endohypogleyic-Eutric – Ple-gln-w) (WRB, 2014), climate – boreal (subarctic) with an average annual

temperature by the 6.7°C and precipitation rate – 625 mm. Length of vegetation season with active

temperatures (≥ 10 °C) is about 6 months. Meteorological conditions during the investigations are pre-

sented in Table 1. Length of vegetation means the period from sugar beet sprouting to harvesting. 2015

and 2016 vegetative seasons were quite different in precipitation rates and temperatures.

Tab. 1 Meteorological conditions during investigations, Kaunas Meteorological Station, 2015–2016

Year

Length of vege-

tation

Average temperature

of 24 hours

Sum of active

temperatures

Precipitation

rate

days ° C ° C mm

2015 159 15.2 2273.9 171.5

2016 137 16.4 2161.7 384.6

The agrotechnical operations and timing are presented in Table 2. Pesticides and mineral fertilizes were

not used in the experiment.

Tab. 2 Agrotechnical operations and timing

Agrotechnical operation Timing

Straw loosening, manure distribution (30 t ha-1),

ploughing 2014 October only

Pre-sowing tillage End of April

Sowing After pre-sowing tillage

Inter-row mellowing before living mulch plants

sowing

End of May, after the emergence

of sugar beet sprouts

Sowing of living mulch After inter-row loosening

Inter-row steaming The beginning of June, after

weed sprouts emergence

Inter-row loosening, cutting and mulching 3 times up to the beginning of

July

Harvesting The beginning of October

Four replication of an experiment were performed, distribution of plots – randomized. In 2014, the pre-

crop of sugar beet was spring barley. Since 2015, continuous sugar beet crop was cultivated.

The distance between sugar beet rows was 45 cm, between seeds – about 16 cm. Sugar beet variety –

„Firenze“. The sowing rate of white mustard and Persian clover as living mulch was 10 kg ha−1, spring

barley – 200 kg ha−1. The living mulch plants were cut and distributed on the soil surface 3 times by a

hand-operated brush cutter ‘Stihl’ FS–550. Inter-row steaming was performed with mobile steaming

machine, which had been projected and manufactured in ASU (patents LT5620B and LT55332B) (Fig.

1).

460

7th TAE 2019

17 - 20 September 2019, Prague, Czech Republic

Fig. 1 Inter-row steaming machine

The experimental data were statistically evaluated using the ANOVA software.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results of investigations show, that alternative weed control methods mainly decreased yield of sugar

beet root compared with mechanical inter-row mellowing (CT) (Table 3). Inter-row steaming treatment

(ST) was effective against weeds. The yield of root crops was about 15 t ha-1 less than in control, but

difference was insignificant. Due to the concurrence with main crop, mulching methods significantly

decreased yields of roots. The most negative effect was observed in MC and MM plots. In our earlier

investigations, white mustard living much effectively controlled weeds in sugar beet crop (Romaneckas,

et al., 2009), but competed with main crop and decreased yields of root crop (Adamavičienė, et. al.,

2009). Similarly, Kunz et al . (2016) found, that the most effective was herbicide application (control)

compared with living mulch application. Despite that, Trifolium subterraneum initiated the highest yield

of white sugar.

Tab. 3 Sugar beet root yield and quality, average of 2015–2016

Weed control

treatment

Yield Sucrose content Potassium content Sodium content

t ha-1 g kg-1 mmol kg-1 mmol kg-1

CT 55.82a 173.9a 31.0a 2.5a

MW 31.86b 167.0a 31.6a 3.0a

MC 28.06b 166.9a 32.0a 3.2a

MM 27.20b 166.4a 32.0a 3.1a

MB 31.48b 168.4a 30.8a 2.6a

ST 40.74ab 174.2a 30.6a 2.4a

Note: CT – inter-row mellowing (control treatment); MW – inter-row cutting and mulching with weeds;

MC – inter-row cutting and mulching with the Persian clover; MM – inter-row cutting and mulching

with white mustard; MB – inter-row cutting and mulching with spring barley; ST – inter-row steaming.

Values with different letters mean significant differences between treatments at 95 % probability level.

In our experiment, different weed control methods included living mulch application, did not have sig-

nificant effect on sugar beet root crop quality (Table 3). In the case of quality, ST treatment was the

most effective. In steamed plots, roots of sugar beet had the higher amount of sucrose and the lowest

concentration of impurities (potassium and sodium). In Afshar et al . (2018) experiment, living mulch

increased sucrose concentration and decreased sodium, potassium and amino-N concentration in the

beet roots.

461

7th TAE 2019

17 - 20 September 2019, Prague, Czech Republic

CONCLUSIONS Different alternative weed control methods usually had negative significant impact on the sugar beet

crop yield, except inter-row steaming treatment. In these plots, decrease of root yield was insignificantly

less compared with control treatment. The effect of weed control methods on sugar beet root quality

parameters was weak. To summarize, inter-row steaming is an effective weed control method, which

might be widely used in conditions of organic farming.

REFERENCES

1. Adamavičienė, A., Romaneckas, K.,

Šarauskis, E., & Pilipavičius, V. (2009). Non-

chemical weed control in sugar beet crop un-

der an intensive and conservation soil tillage

pattern: II. Crop productivity. Agronomy Re-

search, 7 (special issue 1), 143-148.

2. Adamavičienė, A., Romaneckas, K.,

Pilipavičius, V., Avižienytė, D., Šarauskis, E.,

& Sakalauskas, A. (2012). Interaction of

maize and living mulch: Soil chemical prop-

erties and bioactivity. Journal of Food, Agri-

culture & Environment, 10(3-4), 1219-1223.

3. Afshar, R. K., Chen, C., Eckhoff, J., & Flynn

C. (2018). Impact of a living mulch cover crop

on sugarbeet establishment, root yield and su-

crose purity. Field Crops Research, 223, 150-

154.

4. Bennett, R., Phipps, R., Strange, A., & Grei P.

(2004). Environmental and human health im-

pacts of growing genetically modified herbi-

cide-tolerant sugar beet: a life-cycle assess-

ment. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 2, 273-

278.

5. Deveikytė, I. (2005). Comparison of weed

control systems in sugar beet. Žemdirbystė/

Agriculture. 92(4), 93-105 (in Lithuanian with

English summary).

6. IUSS working group WRB. (2014). World

reference base for soil resources. 3th edition.

World Soil Resources Reports No. 106.

Rome: FAO. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3794e.pdf.

7. Domaradzki, K. (2007). Optimization of herb-

icide application in the sugar beet protection

system. Prog. Plant Prot.\Post. Ochr. Roślin,

47(3), 64-73.

8. Duchene, O., Vian, J. F., & Celette, F. (2017).

Intercropping with legume for agroecological

cropping systems: Complementarity and facil-

itation processes and the importance of soil

microorganisms. A review. Agriculture, Eco-

systems & Environment, 240, 148-161.

9. Den Hollander, N. G., Bastiaans, L., &

Kropff, M. J. (2007). Clover as a cover crop

for weed suppression in an intercropping de-

sign. II. Competitive ability of several clover

species. European Journal of Agronomy, 26,

104-112.

10. Kader, M. A., Senge, M., Mojid, M. A., & Ito,

K. (2017). Recent advances in mulching ma-

terials and methods for modifying soil envi-

ronment. Soil & Tillage Research, 168, 155-

166.

11. Kunz, C. H., Sturm, D. J., Peteinatos, G. G., &

Gerhards, R. (2016). Weed Suppression of

Living Mulch in Sugar Beets. Gesunde Pflan-

zen, 68(2), 1-10.

12. Liebman, M., Bastiaans, L., & Baumann, D.

T. (2003). Weed management in low-external-

input and organic farming systems. In Weed

Biology and Management (pp. 285-315).

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

13. Liedgens, M., Frossard, E., & Richner, W.

(2004). Interactions of maize and Italian

ryegrass in a living mulch system: (2) Nitro-

gen and water dynamics. Plant and Soil, 259

(1-2), 243-258.

14. Lumbanraja, J., Adachi, T., Oki, Y., Senge,

M., & Watanabe, A. (2004). Effect of weed

management in coffee plantation on soil

chemical properties. Nutrient Cycling in

Agroecosystems, 69, 1-4.

15. Masilionyte, L., Maiksteniene, S., Kriauciuni-

ene, Z., Jablonskyte-Rasce, D., Zou, L., &

Sarauskis, E. (2017). Effect of cover crops in

smothering weeds and volunteer plants in al-

ternative farming systems. Crop Protection,

91, 74-81.

16. Pannacci, E., Lattanzi, B., & Tei, F. (2017).

Non-chemical weed management strategies in

minor crops: A review. Crop Protection, 96,

44-58.

17. Robačer, M., Canali, S., Lakkenborg Kristen-

sen, H., Bavec, F., Grobelnik Mlakar, S.,

Jakopa, M., & Bavec, M. (2016). Cover crops

in organic field vegetable production. Scientia

Horticulturae, 208, 104-110.

462

7th TAE 2019

17 - 20 September 2019, Prague, Czech Republic

18. Romaneckas, K., Romaneckienė, R. &

Pilipavičius, V. (2009). Non-chemical weed

control in sugar beet crop under intensive and

conservation soil tillage: I. Crop weediness.

Agronomy Research, 7 (Special issue 1), 457-

464.

19. Sirvydas, P. A. & Kerpauskas, P. (2012).

Thermal weed control: monography. Akad-

emija-Kaunas: Aleksandras Stulginskis Uni-

versity Press (in Lithuanian with English sum-

mary).

20. Vasinauskienė, R. & Brazienė, Z. (2017).

Control of pests in the sugar beet crop using

the damp water steam. Optimization of orna-

mental and garden plant assortment, technol-

ogies and environment. 8(13), 89-96 (in Lith-

uanian with English summary).

21. Verret, V., Gardarin, A., Pelzer, E., Médiène,

S., Makowski, D., & Valantin-Morison, M.

(2017). Can legume companion plants control

weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-

analysis. Field Crops Research, 204, 158-168.

22. Yagioka, A., Komatsuzaki, M., Kaneko, N., &

Ueno, H. (2015). Effect of no-tillage with

weed cover mulching versus conventional till-

age on global warming potential and nitrate

leaching. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ-

ment, 200, 42-53.

Corresponding author:

Agr. Kęstutis Romaneckas, Ph.D., Institute of Agroecosystems and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agronomy,

Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, Studentu 11, Akademija, LT53361, Kaunas reg.,

Lithuania, phone: +370 656 300 44, e-mail: kestutis.romaneckas@vdu.lt

463